August 14, 2007

Back in June, we posted on the launch of the ONE Vote '08 campaign campaign to address global inequities in health and standard of living. More recently, that same campaign has done some polling of New Hampshire voters via Peter D. Hart Research Associates & Mclaughlin and Associates. While there's some data about the candidates (not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton (36-19 over Barack Obama) and Mitt Romney (33-17 over Rudy) lead their respective races), the real meat of this polling data suggests a more compassionate America than political and news stories would have you believe. For example:

VIEWS OF AMERICA’S ROLE IN THE WORLD
Nearly all Democrats (97%) and 70% of Republicans agree that America’s standing has suffered in recent years. In addition to a strong military, Democrats (91%) and Republicans (78%) agree that the United States also needs to improve diplomatic relations by doing more to help improve health, education and opportunities in the poorest countries around the world. Both Democrats (81%) and Republicans alike (70%) agree that reducing poverty, treating preventable diseases and improving education in poor countries around the world will help make the world safer and the United States more secure.
Democrats and Republicans agree that America has a moral obligation as a compassionate nation to help the world’s poorest people through foreign assistance. More than nine in ten Democrats (93%) and 84% of Republicans agree that when millions of children around the world are dying from preventable diseases and hunger, we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help. Similarly, Democrats (90%) and Republicans (85%) agree that it is in keeping with the country’s values and our history of compassion to lead an effort to solve some of the most serious problems facing the world’s poorest people.
When it comes to addressing these issues, Democrats (86%) and Republicans (67%) agree that it is important for Presidential candidates to discuss their plans for addressing global hunger and poverty issues in this campaign. Additionally, eight in ten Democrats (81%) and Republicans (80%) agree that the next President should keep the commitments made by President Bush to prevent and fight the spread of AIDS in Africa.

There are Republican and Democratic differences, but the responses are more similar than not. All this talk about "values voters" these many years has been claptrap and balderdash, designed to polarize rather than unite. The real values voters are speaking here... Americans in New Hampshire understand our traditional role in the world and want to return to it.

STRONG SUPPORT FOR CANDIDATES WHO MAKE GLOBAL HEALTH AND EXTREME POVERTY A PRIORITY
There is bipartisan support for Presidential candidates who support measures to improve disease prevention, reduce hunger and improve education. The majority of both Republicans (62%) and Democrats (77%) would be more likely to support a candidate who supports saving 15,000 lives a day by fighting the world’s most devastating diseases including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Similarly, the majority of both Republicans (60%) and Democrats (76%) would also be more likely to support a candidate who supports reducing by half the number of people in the world who suffer from hunger and live in extreme poverty, which would mean 300 million less hungry people each year. Additionally, 54% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats would be more likely to support a candidate who supports providing greater access to primary education for 77 million children who are not in school with a special emphasis on girls.
The majority of Republicans (52%) and Democrats (80%) also supports new approaches to how the United States provides foreign assistance, such as increasing micro-credit to help people start small businesses, and doing more to eliminate corruption to make sure the economies of developing nations thrive and that help goes to the people most in need. In short, members affiliated with both parties (73% Democrats / 62% Republicans) would be more likely to support a candidate who supports increased investments in foreign assistance programs and working with other countries to strengthen national security.

National security can be strengthened in more ways than the barrel of a gun. Long term programs to work on the roots of inequity will do wonders for our own security, and this enlightened self-interest should be a major part of the Presidential campaign (as well as becoming firm US policy).
While it wasn't specifically polled, pandemic preparedness is on my radar screen, and it is worth mentioning in this context that the burden of a flu pandemic would be borne by the world's poorest.

An influenza pandemic of the type that ravaged the globe in 1918 and 1919 would kill about 62 million people today, with 96 percent of the deaths occurring in developing countries.

There's every reason to support a return to a rational and enlightened foreign policy, and it turns out that folks in NH agree. We will be following whether there's more polling available from other states in coming weeks, and post data when available.
More information is available here from the ONE campaign blog.

July 31, 2007

One fascinating piece of fallout from the collapse of Bush popularity
is the now-entrenched media idea that Democratic presidential
candidates will "tack left" as they are "pushed and prodded" by the
netroots and others on their way to the 2008 primaries. However, responsible coverage also adds just how far out of the mainstream current Republican thinking is:

These difficulties pale in comparison, however, to those facing the Republican Party and its candidates for the nomination.

In a reversal of past patterns, the conflicts in this cycle between
the Republican primary electorate, on the one hand, and general
election voters, on the other, are far more severe than on the
Democratic side of the aisle. The continuing support among Republican
voters for both President Bush and his policies in Iraq has pushed all
the leading GOP candidates well outside mainstream views on ending the
war, the issue most likely to dominate 2008.

The potential for conflict between Republican Party orthodoxy and
more moderate general election voters was graphically displayed at a
Columbia, South Carolina Republican Party debate on May 15, when the
audience erupted in cheers as Rudy Giuliani endorsed the use of
torture.

The rallying cry that Bush isn't a conservative is a weak one. And Digby
has already captured the angst as the self-appointed centrists (who
really are Establishment conservatives) try and apply outdated and
inaccurate labels that better position themselves far more than
enlighten their audience.

In any case, as Rasmussen
points out, progressive has a more positive connotation than moderate
or conservative (liberal is out of favor). When it comes to
conservative, Bush and the GOP have sullied the brand.

For some, it may seem strange to distinguish between a candidate who
is like Reagan and a candidate who is politically conservative. But,
that gap has arisen because the definition of conservative has been
altered by the more recent GOP leadership in Congress and the White
House. Also, of course, being compared to Reagan ascribes some personal
characteristics that cannot be captured in an ideological label.

These two themes – Reagan good, Bush bad and the American consensus
on issues like Iraq, stem cell research, health care and government's
(non-Norquist) role in tackling the problems of the 21st Century – will
flavor the description of where the public and the candidates are
described as falling within the political spectrum, particularly by the
establishment punditocracy. And the more the political center moves
away from the failed establishment (not just Bush but the people that
supported him, including the pundits) and back to mainstream
sensibility, the more that the 'left' label will be hurled in
desperation, as if it matters to the pragmatic American public. It's
good for fund raising on the right, I suppose, but it won't help the GOP come election day.

July 29, 2007

Anyone know who the Surgeon General is? Trick
question, really because we don't have one. The last one to occupy that
office (and supposedly the top public health officer in the US, the
person who speaks directly to the American people about health issues
that matter — smoking, for example) was Richard Carmona. Well, he
didn't last and had a few harsh things to say under oath.

A surgeon general's report in 2006 that called on Americans to help
tackle global health problems has been kept from the public by a Bush
political appointee without any background or expertise in medicine or
public health, chiefly because the report did not promote the
administration's policy accomplishments, according to current and
former public health officials.

The report described the link between poverty and poor health, urged
the U.S. government to help combat widespread diseases as a key aim of
its foreign policy, and called on corporations to help improve health
conditions in the countries where they operate. A copy of the report
was obtained by The Washington Post.

Three people directly involved in its preparation said its publication was blocked by William R. Steiger,
a specialist in education and a scholar of Latin American history whose
family has long ties to President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Since
2001, Steiger has run the Office of Global Health Affairs in the
Department of Health and Human Services.

Richard H. Carmona, who commissioned the "Call to Action on Global
Health" while serving as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, recently
cited its suppression as an example of the Bush administration's
frequent efforts during his tenure to give scientific documents a
political twist. At a July 10 House committee hearing, Carmona did not
cite Steiger by name or detail the report's contents and its
implications for American public health.

Only 166 of the CDC's 304 overseas positions in 53 countries are
filled, according to the memo. At least 85 positions likely will remain
unfilled until 2008, Blount said. Among the causes he cited: Delays at
a federal human resource center in Atlanta and an additional
bureaucratic layer that requires CDC foreign postings be approved by a senior political appointee's office in Washington...

William Steiger, director of HHS' Office of Global
Health Affairs, was out of the country and unavailable for comment,
said spokesman Bill Hall. Steiger has come under fire in the past for
allegedly micromanaging the overseas work of the department's
scientific divisions. Steiger, the godson of former President George
H.W. Bush, is President George W. Bush's nominee to be the next U.S.
ambassador to Mozambique.

Hall did not respond to requests for other department officials to explain the hiring policies.

Jeff Levi, executive director of the Trust for America's Health,
questioned why HHS officials in Washington are contributing to the
CDC's hiring delays. "CDC isn't sending political people abroad to do
global disease detection. They're sending scientists," said Levi, whose
Washington-based group examines public health preparedness.

Levi said having CDC scientists overseas is important in creating a
stronger global disease detection system. The vacancies create the risk
that "we won't get the warning we need and we won't be as prepared as
we should be," he said.

The Bush Administration interference with science has been pervasive
and repeated. I'm glad it's starting to get a little more press. The
next administration needs to be held to a completely different
standard. This one's a lost cause, and needs to be exposed as widely as
possible.

Avian Influenza H5N1 has gained significant international attention. Most
experts today view the increasing possibility of a pandemic influenza
as the most significant global health emergency on the immediate
horizon. A pandemic is a global disease outbreak, and an
influenza pandemic occurs when a new influenza A virus emerges for
which there is little or no immunity in the human population, begins to
cause serious illness and then spreads easily from person to person
worldwide. Historically, pandemics have traveled along sea-lanes, with
global spread completed within six to eight months. Air travel has
shortened this timeline considerably.

Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and
no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at
improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to
demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time. A
description follows of short- and long-term impacts, by indicator.

July 26, 2007

A look at the profile of the 29 percent who want to pull out all troops now produces a somewhat unconventional picture.

Women are more likely than men to back immediate withdrawal (33
percent to 23 percent). Support for an immediate withdrawal is highest
in the West (34 percent) and lowest in the South (24 percent). Thirty
four percent of black voters supported an immediate withdrawal, as did
26 percent of whites.

None of those figures is terribly surprising.

But how about the fact that there isn't any statistical difference
between liberals and moderates? Twenty-eight percent of self-identified
liberals backed immediate withdrawal, while a similar 27 percent of
moderates felt the same way.

...

The poll data suggests any attempt to put a definitive label on
those who favor immediate withdrawal (liberals, young people, Obama
supporters) falls short. The reality is that the war as a political
issue is far too complicated to boil down into neatly-packed subgroups.

The analysis speaks for itself. Trying to put 'far left' labels on this won't stick any more than calling 65% disapproval of Bush's performance 'far left'.

July 24, 2007

Five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor were pardoned by
President Georgi Parvanov upon their arrival in Sofia on Tuesday after
spending 8 1/2 years in prison in Libya.

The medics, who were sentenced to life in prison for allegedly
contaminating children with the AIDS virus, arrived on a plane with
French first lady Cecilia Sarkozy and the EU's commissioner for foreign
affairs, Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

The six came down the steps from the airplane and were welcomed on
the tarmac by family members who hugged them, one lifting the
Palestinian doctor off the ground.

They were given bouquets of flowers, and Bulgaria's president and
prime minister were on hand, greeting the nurses and Sarkozy, who had
been part of the delegation that negotiated the group's return.

''I waited so long for this moment,'' nurse Snezhana Dimitrova said before falling in the arms of her loved ones.

Libya accused the six of deliberately infecting more than 400 Libyan
children with HIV. Fifty of the children died. The medics, jailed since
1999, deny infecting the children and say their confessions were
extracted under torture.

These were trumped up charges, and the trial was marked by a refusal
on Libya's part to allow scientific data clearing the health care
workers. A campaign on their behalf was started by Nature in Sept 2006

Libya's travesty

Six medical workers in Libya face execution. It is not too late for scientists to speak up on their behalf.

Letters were written, the story was blogged, pressure was brought to
bear, and after years of stalemate, here they are. Kudos to Declan, the
science bloggers and everyone who helped reverse this travesty of
justice. Activism has its triumphs as well as its frustrations, and
today is one of those triumphs.

July 21, 2007

Toothless legislation attracts votes, but doesn't get the job done.
Legislation with teeth doesn't attract a consensus or a working
majority (at this time) because there isn't one in Congress. (Part I)

[Focus on Chris Shays] Much of this is driven by the sense that the
GOP as a whole is standing on the brink of a precipice for the 2008
election. Taking Ben Franklin to heart, they've decided to hang
together in hopes they won't be hung separately. and part of that
'unity' is to divert responsibility away from themselves and try to, if
not blame Democrats (Bush has tried that and failed) then at least get
some bipartisan responsibility and make it a bipartisan mess. (Part II)

[Press coverage] Anything that happens now to advance the discussion
is a bonus and worth going for. But when the press writes that this
amendment 'failed' or that attempt 'did not succeed' put it in
perspective. The Administration is losing support everywhere; it just
takes time for the info to work its way to DC. (Part III)

What's happening now is that Washington is realizing the obvious.
There's nowhere to go come September, so they're lashing out. While
they ineffectually try to explore moving the goalposts or pretending we're winning
(with no movement at all in the political process, that's absurd), they
also figure the best defense is a good offense. And what better way to
go on offense is to blame the Democrats in general, and Harry Reid in
particular. The way it's done in DC is to turn to the GOP enablers, in
this case David Brooks and Fred Hiatt. Frank's diary summarizes the Hiatt end of things:

If you read the Washington Post editorial titled "The Phony Debate"(and
linked off the frontpage with the title "Democratic demagoguery on
Iraq"), you come away with the idea that the current situation can be
squarely blamed on Harry Reid, and that a solution could be found if
only the Democrats were willing to compromise with Bush and the
Republicans. It is a strange piece from the bizarro world.

July 20, 2007

Based on the July 2007 Quarterly Finance Reports to the Federal
Elections Commission, Ron Paul is the most supported candidate in terms
of financial support by Military Personnel and Military Veterans...

July 17, 2007

Republicans say they hope passion about the Iraq war will cool by
the time 2008 ballots are cast. But they acknowledge that if the
election were held tomorrow, the war would be a ball and chain around
the GOP ankle.

The party was hobbled by antiwar sentiment in the 2006 midterm
election, when Republicans lost control of Congress. If the politics of
the war do not change, Republicans fear, their hope of regaining
control of Congress in 2008 will not be realized.

"Do we hope Iraq is not an issue by election day? Sure," said
Rebecca Fisher, spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial
Committee. "But can we guess where we will be next year? No way."

The political fallout from the Iraq debate is hard to gauge,
analysts say, because it will hinge in large part on uncertain
developments in the war and whether Bush changes course.

That is why more Republican senators, after standing by Bush for
years, are now trying to reshape policy well before election day
arrives. Last week's Senate debate on defense policy featured a who's
who of Republicans facing reelection in 2008 signing on to proposals
designed to signal their dissatisfaction with the course of the war.

"If the politics of the war do not change..." Yeah. "The
political fallout from the Iraq debate is hard to gauge, analysts say,
because it will hinge in large part on uncertain developments in the
war and whether Bush changes course." Sure.

What the press simply won't write is that Iraq is not going to get
better, and there's zero chance Bush will change course without being
forced to. Somehow in the "he said, she said" style of the New
Journalism, Bush's stubborn insistance on leading the the country over
a cliff is portrayed as 'resolute' as opposed to stubborn to the point
of simple-mindedness (there is no Plan B, Bush has no intention of
changing course, and these statements have been repeatedly made by the
WH to a disbelieving press who can't fathom that Bush actually means
what he says. How often the press has failed us for that very reason!
What he says is unreasonable but he's never called on it).

As noted, signing on to Lugar and Warner's amendment gets us
nowhere. There's no teeth in the amendment. However, it does embarrass
the WH to have to be told to get your head of wherever it's been placed
and rejoin the reality-based community.

The fact that so few Republicans have been willing to endorse a firm
deadline means they will continue to be exposed to criticism from
Democrats and from constituents weary of the war. Some Republican
strategists worry that no matter what lawmakers do now, the issue will
leave some Republican incumbents vulnerable.

"There will be races that will be more competitive in places you
don't expect," said a senior advisor to one Republican facing a tough
reelection contest. "Fifteen months is a lifetime in politics, it's
true. But questions like this war don't go away quickly. This has been
three years coming. I don't think it goes away in a New York minute."

John McCain banked on the war to spearhead his drive for the WH. The result?

However, you can also count on Bush to assume he can't go any lower, and with good reason (Charles Franklin writing at pollster.com):

The question is whether Republicans are yet willing to reduce their
support for President Bush still further. Republican Senators have
begun a series of breaks with the President over Iraq policy and could
signal to the grass roots that it is time for an end to unconditional
support for Bush. On the other hand, Republicans in the House have
retained their unity in support of the President's Iraq policy and so
far Republican presidential candidates have refused to repudiate the
President. With the divisive immigration bill behind him Bush may be
able to sustain a new plateau in partisan support leading to a
flattening out of his approval trend.

That assumes independents, or at least 20-25% of them, will also stay on board.

That's why Bush won't change course unless forced, why the August
recess is so important, and why R congress critters are not likely to
bolt until the get home and hear what the country is really saying.

Follow the news, but keep your expectations realistic. Anything that
happens now to advance the discussion is a bonus and worth going for.
But when the press writes that this amendment 'failed' or that attempt
'did not succeed' put it in perspective. The Administration is losing
support everywhere; it just takes time to work its way to DC.

July 15, 2007

Part Iis here. H/T to yesterday's commenters, here and at Daily Kos, who provided excellent links.

Today's discussion is about responsibility. The question for today
is "why don't the Republicans who think a change of strategy is needed
work and vote with Democrats?" The answers are somewhat varied. Today,
let's look at New England. That's easy because there's only one person
to took at.

Rep. Christopher Shays has called on Congress to approve withdrawing
virtually all American troops from Iraq by December 2008, a blow to
Bush administration efforts to fight the mounting support in Congress
for a sharp change in strategy.

"I believe we need a timeline. I believe the president's wrong," the 4th District Republican said Friday.

So, Bush is wrong and Shays will help rectify his position. And
doesn't that mean Chris Shays will do the right thing and vote with the
D's? Ah, you don't know Chris "Mr. Waffle" Shays.

He first embraced the idea of timelines about a year ago, on the eve
of a fierce re-election fight, but stayed away from offering specific
dates. Shays earlier this year had said that while he would go along
with timelines, it was up to the president and not Congress to set them.

Not anymore.

"I can't wait any longer for the administration to come and say,
`These are the deadlines,"' the congressman said Friday. "I've waited
longer than I'm even comfortable with."

He set the December 2008, date because it would allow the troops to leave before a new president took office a month later.

July 14, 2007

What's the difference between doing what's right
and doing what's expedient? Sometimes the answer is "passing
legislation". That uncomfortable fact isn't a 'free pass for Congress'
in any sense. If they can't handle tough public votes (cough - David
Vitter) they should quit (well, he may have to, anyway) or be replaced.
But this NY Times story captures the dilemma we have been discussing all week:

While Mr. Bush almost certainly commands less loyalty than at any
other time of his presidency, the White House has kept enough
Republicans from siding with Democrats to keep legislation from
reaching the 60-vote threshold needed to pass legislation in the Senate
— not to mention the 67 votes needed to override a veto. At the same
time, Democrats have often produced legislation that is viewed as hard
for some Republicans to endorse.

"I think the trouble in this Senate is that too many of us — I try
not to be one of them, but I do occasionally — are pandering to the
base on both sides of the aisle," said Senator George V. Voinovich,
Republican of Ohio. "As a result of that, we don’t do the things that
we should do."

Take, for example, a vote in the House late on Thursday evening in
which only four Republicans joined Democrats in passing a plan calling
for a troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a deadline of
removing most troops — except an unspecified number needed for a
limited mission — by April 1. Democratic officials had hoped to lure
away more Republicans to create momentum for when a similar measure is
considered next week in the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California dismissed questions about
the vote margin, telling reporters, "It was a very solid Democratic
vote."

But given their narrow majority in Congress, Democrats alone cannot
force the administration to change its strategy in Iraq. A senior
Democratic official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss
internal strategy, said Friday that "Democratic leaders want to end the
war, but they also know that it’s important to highlight the
differences with Republicans."

Toothless legislation attracts votes, but doesn't get the job done.
Legislation with teeth doesn't attract a consensus or a working
majority (at this time) because there isn't one in Congress.

However, this misses a major issue which the members of Congress are
going to hear about, and in spades, when they go back home for recess.
The simple fact is that the public is way ahead of the politicians. The
urgency to adjust the status quo outweighs the loyalty to the base, and
far outweighs loyalty to an unpopular President, that GOP congress
critters feel. The country thinks Congress is dithering. Explaining it
away as "I have to keep my shrinking Republican base happy, even though
they are unrealistic about the war because Fox News, Joe Lieberman and
I don't tell the truth about what's happening there" is not going to
fly. One of those political "bases" is now 70% of the country. The
other needs to be told by people they trust (and it's not us) that's
there's Bush's view of Iraq and then there's reality. That's the only
way the GOP will be comfortable voting to scale down and change the
mission. They're desperately looking for figleafs when what they need
to be looking for is courage.

That's bitter medicine, and whether it's the right wing talking
heads and the online pundits or the politicians themselves, only a few
(Hagel, Snowe, Luger) are actually doing what needs to be done (voting
along with Democrats now and/or preparing their base for when they do).
Sure, the votes aren't there yet, but everyone in Washington in this
kabuki show knows that's coming. The trouble is that delaying the
inevitable just means more unnecessary deaths. Hiding behind the excuse
that "well, Democrats aren't being inclusive" or "it's all about
politics, and it's my vote in September that will be remembered, not my
vote in July" is just more wishful thinking.

The Iraq War is the worst foreign policy blunder in a generation.
It's the GOP's war, and it's Bush's war. If they don't face up to that
reality, and at least start preparing their base for the inevitable,
they run the risk that 2008 will turn out to be 2006 on steroids. And,
you know, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of ideologues.